A bit of fun: Synodontis what?

[RickE]

From a ~4000 year old Egyptian relic in the Louvre:

Anyone care to have a go?

Answer (as given by the Louvre) to be revealed....

[nvcichlids]

a hybrid of course

No idea, not good with Synos.. but whatever it was, it has a large lobe for soft dorsal spines.

my guess is

Synodontis euptera

. If it is common in the hobby today, it must have been common 4000 years ago too

[Marc van Arc]

Definitely a hybrid. Parents: Synodontis X Tetranematichthys

[Mike_Noren]

Looks a lot like a

Hemisynodontis membranacea

to me...

[Richard B]

B.Batensoda?

[nvcichlids]

Looks a lot like a

Hemisynodontis membranacea

to me...

i missed that one.. i like this guess!

[pleco_breeder]

Synanceia verrucosa.... aka stonefish ;)

In all reality, Syno membranacea is likely to be the best match.

Larry

[MatsP]

Perhaps

Synodontis resupinata

? It is often confused with B. batensoda.

But my first thought, before I even saw the first reply was the Hemisynodontis. Shame the barbel are missing - it's just where a little bit has cracked off...

--
Mats

[racoll]

Looks a lot like a Hemisynodontis membranacea to me...

The small eyes suggest to me that Mike's on the money!

[RickE]

And the winner is.... Richard B! Well done Richard.

Brachysynodontis batensoda

There was also a

Heteropneustes fossilis

on there but it was too unclear for you to stand a chance of getting it.

[Silurus]

There was also a

Heteropneustes fossilis

on there

I highly doubt it would have been that. More likely a misidentified Schilbe, since I hardly expect the Louvre to be the last word on fish identification.

[MatsP]

The so called "Malopterus electricus" look more like

Auchenoglanis

to me.

--
Mats

[Silurus]

I think the Malapterurus is corectly identified, just not rendered accurately enough.

[MatsP]

I think the Malapterurus is corectly identified, just not rendered accurately enough.

That is of course another possibility.

--
Mats

[Richard B]

[RickE]

There was also a

Heteropneustes fossilis

on there

I highly doubt it would have been that. More likely a misidentified Schilbe, since I hardly expect the Louvre to be the last word on fish identification.

From the bit I could see, it definitely had a very nice set of

Heteropneustes fossilis

type whiskers. I can't see a

Schilbe

that comes close in that department. I wish I had tried to get a picture of it now.

There is some information on their website: http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/ ... hing-scene

[Silurus]

It might have been a badly-rendered Clarias, then.

[Silurus]

I think the ancient Egyptians were more accurate at rendering fish in three dimensions. This is a lot easier to identify correctly.